Roadtrek 210 Popular Questions

[fruch]

We are considering a Class B, it will be our first RV. Being a repeat GM customer, the RT 210 Popular caught my attention. Does anyone have any 'real world' MPG information on a newer model RT 210? Most of the information I find online pertains to older models. Also, any owner feed back about the RT 210 would be useful, I would be interested to hear from owners who have opinions about drivers seat comfort on long trips. Thanks.

[booster]

Originally Posted by fruch

We are considering a Class B, it will be our first RV. Being a repeat GM customer, the RT 210 Popular caught my attention. Does anyone have any 'real world' MPG information on a newer model RT 210? Most of the information I find online pertains to older models. Also, any owner feed back about the RT 210 would be useful, I would be interested to hear from owners who have opinions about drivers seat comfort on long trips. Thanks.

Most of the 210 drivers would report 14-16 mpg overall highway mileage, with it being very dependent on speed and type of driving. The newer 6 speed models seem to be doing in the 1mpg better range, as near as I can tell from what has been said by users, but mileage is often miscalculated or cherry picked, so hard to tell. City driving is much lower, in the 10-12 range for most, I think.

The biggest downside of the 210 Chevies appears to be the very meager load carrying capacity. In real world use, many will only have about 500# of usable capacity for "stuff", it appears. The Roadterk literature is very deceptive on this issue, and would imply that the load capacity is much higher, so don't be fooled by it, or a salesman.

We have a 190 Chevy and have found the seats to be very comfortable on long drives, and substantially better for us than the seats in other brands that we looked at.

[peteco]

We have had a 2006 210P for 6 years. What Booster said is correct on the mileage and load capacity. Driving with a light foot makes a big difference. I have had ours weighed when loaded and we do get right up to the weight limit. I am careful to not overload with too much water or stuff. The storage is probably the best of all B's with the large and small external compartments. We like being able to keep nasty stuff external: grill, fishing poles, propane canisters, etc. The extra width makes a big difference in livability inside for us. Roadtrek has trouble keeping up with the demand, even though the price is high. Roadtrek has indicated GM is not providing enough vans for them.

[mkguitar]

MPG is one of the prime advantages of a B.

My 2006 Pleasure-way lexor ( not a wide body like the 210) is good for 15~16 MPG at 65~70 MPH ( faster is less stable) w mid grade fuel w/ 10% ethanol typical. measured over about 20K of driving.

This is the 6.0 vortec 3 spd w overdrive.

It is a dandy motor.

I too ave GM's and the commonality of the platform gives me comfort...I already know how to do some of the fixes, have the manuals and tools and shares oil filters and stuff with my truck.

we appear to get reduced MPG from low grade fuels ( less timing advance)- like 87 or the 85 in Colorado.
one of the other members has had different results according to scan guage...I've been thinking bout getting something like that

Mike

[booster]

The whole fuel is pretty interesting to me, but is very hard to figure out sometimes, especially when there are lots of people who see way different results of the same thing.

I was watching the timing on our 07 6.0 gasser (which is slightly different from later years that have variable valve timing and some other changes) because I wanted to see what a "modern" regular fuel based engine ran for timing. The whole thing started with our 1970 Dodge Challenger twin turbo, efi, small block Mopar 340 cid engine. I originally built it with the normal for the 70's 2.02 intake valve, open chamber, big port, heads and it performed as expected, needing lots of timing at cruise and lots of reduction under boost to kill detonation. At cruise, highway speed, 2100 rpm, we got best fuel consumption (we could see it continuously on the laptop efi program) with about 44* degrees advance. I had to back it down to 25* when on 12 psi of boost, with 92 octane no ethanol fuel. I later changed the heads and pistons on the engine to late 80's iron heads which were 1.75 intake (moved out to 1.875) closed chamber, high quench that was very tight, and ports that were very small compared to the old heads. These were touted as "fast burn heads" in the day. Basically, they gave much higher inlet charge velocity, lots of swirl, huge turbulence because of the quench. All of these things increase the flame speed during combustion. With just that change, even with an extra point of compression, the best fuel mileage was attained at 28* advance at the same speed and rpm. Under boost, it was still fine at 25* so almost no retard needed, plus I was able to reduce the overly rich AF ratio I was running to suppress detonation, and eliminate the water injection that was on over 10psi before.

I think this shows that if you can get a very fast burn in the cylinder, you can extract more energy because more of the burn is closer to TDC than a slower burn with lots of spark advance. The more you advance the timing, the more energy is spent working against the rising piston, and the less is wasted burning after it is too late. In slow burn engines, the balance is harder to do, as you trade initial burn efficiency off for after TDC late combustion that isn't doing anything as the piston is too far down. Ideally, you would want 100% combustion instantly at TDC in a perfect world. (think diesel injection or direct injection gas setups)

IIRC correctly, the Chevy 6.0 ran at very near the same advance, at similar rpm and intake, vacuum as the old Challenger did with the newer heads, which was pretty interesting, and would probably explain why the Challenger got a lot more fun to drive after the change.

I did run across this statement, that appeared to be from some sort of GM guru.

"Unless it's the "vortec max" version, it SHOULD run better on regular unleaded. The ECM is optimized for low-grade fuel. Therein it will advance the timing right up until the knock sensor tells it to stop. With higher octane fuel, it will never find the maximum and just start over each time. If the advance function can't "make" it knock, it never finds the maximum."

This would seem to me to be that GM decided to make knock threshold, on the recommended fuel, the "calibration" point for the timing baseline. It would likely be that the compression would have been increased in the development stage until they got knock at slightly more advance than the point that gave best power and/or mileage based on the engine burn speed and fuel flame speed. This makes sense, as it would make it so the engine would always try to get to the max efficiency spark advance based on the burn rate, but would never go beyond it and get less efficient, while also staying safe and retarding timing if you had a load of bad fuel or mechanical problem. I can see how what the guy said about higher octane fuel could cost performance and mileage if this is correct.

The comment about using 85-87 octane gas in Colorado might indicate more of a fuel vapor pressure, altitude, issue. Having low altitude fuel mix and going high, or the other way around, has shown in our van to change the mileage. The same happens with winter/summer fuel around here in Minnesota, especially in the spring if we get a quick hot day before all the stations get switched to summer fuel, or you haven't bought fuel for a while.

Having a Scangauge is a great thing for us tech geeks, except when we watch it too much instead of the road, as it will show all the timing information, intake vacuum, injector pulse width, fuel #/hr, trip and instantaneous mileage, etc. Fun toy, especially on long boring road stretches.

I do think that in the "somewhat old days" the using higher grade fuel did improve performance and mileage significantly. I remember seeing lots of higher performance cars that would tout that they could run on regular fuel, probably as a sales point. The problem was that what they did was take a mid or premium optimized engine and just pull a bunch of timing out if you were running it on lower octane. Of course this pulled you off the max efficiency point for the engine design and did bad things for both power and mileage. I remember driving a few of them back then (never owned one), and they would almost always give a touch of light detonation that you could barely hear on light throttle applications or going up a small rise. You would usually only get 1-3 light knocks before it compensated. They would not do that on the higher octane fuels. A lot folks remember those vehicles, which would exhibit exactly what has been mentioned by Mike.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by fruch

We are considering a Class B, it will be our first RV. Being a repeat GM customer, the RT 210 Popular caught my attention. Does anyone have any 'real world' MPG information on a newer model RT 210? Most of the information I find online pertains to older models. Also, any owner feed back about the RT 210 would be useful, I would be interested to hear from owners who have opinions about drivers seat comfort on long trips. Thanks.

2017 RT 210. Took delivery in August 2016. Has approximately 7000 miles to date. Initially driven across country from Wisconsin across the Rockies and down the West Coast from Washington to California. MPG to date is 16.2.

Re drivers seat comfort - very comfortable over long periods. That said, IMO, do not rely on any anecdotal reports on seat comfort because depending on one's back profile, what can be comfortable for some can be torture for others.

[mkguitar]

Originally Posted by booster

Having a Scangauge is a great thing

Please see my Pm to you
Mike

[fruch]

Thanks for the information everyone! I have not seen a RT 210 close up yet. I hope to attend a show very soon and check it out. I like the whole Chevrolet gas engine idea, we have driven Chevrolet Tahoes for years here, they have proven to be sturdy and dependable.

[mkguitar]

drivers seat comfort- on my PW the chev 3500 seat appears to be a recovered oem style ( and cloth, no way would I own leather seats in the desert). they are comfy for long hours, good support.

BUT many find the seating position is "close" to the steering wheel. I'm 6'1" and am ok with it, ( and in fact have my seat forwards 1 click) but this is a common complaint on many B's

the space behind my seat was originally a table top storage- we don;t use the tables, so they are stored in the garage. In the corner behind my seat i have a short scale guitar and down low we fit 2 x 1 gallon water jugs.

I had though about hanging jackets there, but if wet that'd mess up the fabric and the wood. so wet jackets go in a trash bag until we land where we can hang them

you gotta use every inch!

mike

[booster]

I don't find the seating position in the Chevy as too close in general, but I don't like the ratio of where the pedals and steering wheel are, which is getting pretty common in lots of vehicles these days. (airbag safety, I think)

I would prefer the pedals to be further away, or the steering wheel further out, as I like having my legs near straight out, but like the steering wheel pretty close. I try to split the difference, and it is OK when on cruise control, as I can stretch on leg out to the left f the brake pedal, the other will actually be able to under the brake pedal, if I don't have shoes on.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by booster

The whole fuel is pretty interesting to me, but is very hard to figure out sometimes, especially when there are lots of people who see way different results of the same thing.

Obviously driving technique and different cargo weights somewhat accounts for differences in MPG results but I think the less appreciated factor is the use of cruise control which while convenient, is oblivious to optimum vacuum and in my own experience results in lower MPG.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by fruch

Thanks for the information everyone! I have not seen a RT 210 close up yet. I hope to attend a show very soon and check it out. I like the whole Chevrolet gas engine idea, we have driven Chevrolet Tahoes for years here, they have proven to be sturdy and dependable.

IMO, the Roadtrek Chevy platform used in the 190 and the 210 is under appreciated. Roadtrek has been refining both models for decades and they are pretty bullet proof at this point. The ability to find a Chevy service and repair facility in virtually every town in the country I think is a real plus.

When looking at dealer inventory nationwide, it seems like, Roadtrek is shifting their production emphasis to the Sprinter Agile,CS and the Zion promaster and not building many Chevys particularly the 210 which is a relatively complicated build. Also, apparently Chevy has shifted their production priorities in favor of their trucks and Roadtrek has reportedly experienced some problems in timely delivery of the van chassis. Even further complicating it, Chevy may quit building on the Express platform in the not too distant future.

We decided on the 210 rather than the 190 for a number of reasons:

Substantially larger compressor refrigerator.

Very convenient forward slideout table. No necessity for continually dragging out and storing it.

800ah lithium battery option. The 190 option is limited to 400ah.

Living space: the 210 living space is 7 ft 4 in, about 8-9 inches wider than the
Sprinters. 8 inches doesn't seem like a lot but the increase in the sense of spaciousness is remarkable.

Kitchen: The microwave is a 1KW/1800W combination unit which comes close to making the stove practically superfluous.

Sleeping: Srinters, et al, describe a twin bed configuration but those beds are 25 inches wide which IMO makes for a poor night's sleep pretty much requiring using the "king" bed configuration. The 210 twin beds are 30 inches wide. It doesn't seem like a big difference in sleeping comfort but it actually is.

Outside storage: No other class B that I'm aware even distantly competes with the 210 on this count.

Fresh Water System: The 210 fresh water supply consists of dual fresh water tanks. Under winter freezing conditions, the exterior water tank can be emptied while the interior water tank can be retained.

Profile: We really like the low exterior profile of the 210/190. It's over a foot lower than the Sprinter and still provides similar interior headroom. There is a minor tradeoff which is that you have to watch your noggin when entering and existing the coach and getting in and out of the driving compartment.

Options: The 210 is the only non-Sprinter Roadtrek model that will provide the Etrek package minus only the propane deletion since a gas model can't support the Sprinter Alde diesel heating package. Also, the 210 "Etrek" version doesn't employ an induction stove but IMO, this stove is not worth it's touted hoopla.

The only 210s I see in dealer inventory are 2016 models, some of which are on the 2015 chassis and have the Onan generator which for me would be a categorical deal breaker. I would avoid them in favor of ordering a 2017 with the exact options you want. If you want more info in this regard, PM me and I'll give you some suggestions regarding who I think has the sharpest pencil.

[BBQ]

.

The 210 outside storage is priceless

[booster]

Originally Posted by BBQ

.

The 210 outside storage is priceless

Yep, and the 190s are not bad either, especially if you move the batteries underneath like we did, and get the two areas on the passenger side for storage, also.

This is the one huge area that the old body of frame units absolutely kill the unibodies.

[angelmroman]

X10 on the last three posts!

It's because of all the reasons listed above, that I've been hesitant in replacing my 210 with SOB. It does everything I ask of her well. The more I look at all the other offerings, the more satisfied I am with her

[Ron J. Moore]

If you are satisfied with your 210, and it does everything you ask......I wouldn't part company with it - you know what you have!

[Kac533]

Hi Booster. This is WAY over my head as I’m not the mechanic you are I’m new to roadtrek and am getting ready to take long trip and was just googling how to increase my fuel economy. I’ve got a new/used 96C210P that’s in good shape with 108k on engine and aside for some minor rust I’m working on it’s in almost like new shape. My quest oyou is would higher octane increase my mileage? I drove it home from Green Bay to Dayton and only got about 12 mpg previous owner said he averages 14 but I think he stays below 65 which I know I must do and the only way is for me to engage cruise because I have lead foot! I’m going to do basic things like air filter, properly inflated tires, lighter load but I’d be grateful to you if you would give me some other ideas. Appreciate it! Kasey

[booster]

Originally Posted by Kac533

Hi Booster. This is WAY over my head as I’m not the mechanic you are I’m new to roadtrek and am getting ready to take long trip and was just googling how to increase my fuel economy. I’ve got a new/used 96C210P that’s in good shape with 108k on engine and aside for some minor rust I’m working on it’s in almost like new shape. My quest oyou is would higher octane increase my mileage? I drove it home from Green Bay to Dayton and only got about 12 mpg previous owner said he averages 14 but I think he stays below 65 which I know I must do and the only way is for me to engage cruise because I have lead foot! I’m going to do basic things like air filter, properly inflated tires, lighter load but I’d be grateful to you if you would give me some other ideas. Appreciate it! Kasey

It appears that you could get 3 different engines back then in a 210. 5.7 or 7.4 gassers or a diesel.


The 12mpg sounds too good for a 7.4 so probably a 5.7 and probably in range for anything more than a 50-55mph cruise. I don't know offhand if they were throttle body or port injected and that can make a difference and both engines were still alive at GM in that era. Tire pressure not low, speed down, gently accelerations, etc will help. Any kind of wind will kill mileage badly if from front or even the side on many vans like our 2007 Chevy 190.

[jjrbus]

I have a 02 200 on the Chevy chassis. One thing to note is the ground clearance on the 200 is higher than the 170 or 190 and would assume the 210 is also. The 200 is built on what GM calls a Cut Away chassis, the chassis used for box trucks, shipped with just the driver cab and frame. So far all mechanical parts I have looked for have been the same as RT's built in a van.

I have noticed that some people in order to increase their mpg lie about it, either that or they are delusional. I try not to pay attention to mpg and focus on other things.

[booster]

Originally Posted by jjrbus

I have a 02 200 on the Chevy chassis. One thing to note is the ground clearance on the 200 is higher than the 170 or 190 and would assume the 210 is also. The 200 is built on what GM calls a Cut Away chassis, the chassis used for box trucks, shipped with just the driver cab and frame. So far all mechanical parts I have looked for have been the same as RT's built in a van.

I have noticed that some people in order to increase their mpg lie about it, either that or they are delusional. I try not to pay attention to mpg and focus on other things.

I think all 210s were built on full bodies vans and only the 200s were on cutaways.


The 210s did cut off more of the body to expand the width of the body behind the cab, so more fiberglass than a 190 or 170, but they still started as a full bodied van.


210s have the same clearance as the other full body vans and numerous ones on this forum have been lifted.